Back
1972 Supreme(AP) 93
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY
Kanchi Kamamma - Appellant
Versus
Yerramsetti Appanna - Respondent
Decided On : 06-27-72
A sale deed executed by a person who is not competent to alienate the property is void and cannot be ratified by the natural guardian.
Headnote:
GIFT DEED - VALIDITY - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 6, 11 - SUMMARY : The court held that the gift deed was valid and the donee had entered into possession of the land in pursuance of the gift deed. The court also held that the sale deed executed by the maternal grandfather of the minor son was not valid as he was not competent to alienate the properties of the minor under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The court further held that the subsequent ratification of the sale deed by the natural guardian was also not valid as there was no express authorisation in writing to execute a sale deed on behalf of the natural guardian.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title to, and recovery of the plaint schedule properties on the averment that the 1st defendant, the admitted owner of the properties, executed a gift deed in favour of one Dasina Maridayya who died and his heirs and legal representatives sold the same under the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the gift deed was valid and the donee had entered into possession of the land in pursuance of the gift deed. The court also found that the sale deed executed by the maternal grandfather of the minor son was not valid as he was not competent to alienate the properties of the minor under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The court further found that the subsequent ratification of the sale deed by the natural guardian was also not valid as there was no express authorisation in writing to execute a sale deed on behalf of the natural guardian.
Issues: 1. Whether the gift deed was valid? 2. Whether the sale deed executed by the maternal grandfather of the minor son was valid? 3. Whether the subsequent ratification of the sale deed by the natural guardian was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the gift deed was valid as it was executed in accordance with the law and the donee had entered into possession of the land in pursuance of the gift deed. 2. The court held that the sale deed executed by the maternal grandfather of the minor son was not valid as he was not competent to alienate the properties of the minor under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. 3. The court held that the subsequent ratification of the sale deed by the natural guardian was also not valid as there was no express authorisation in writing to execute a sale deed on behalf of the natural guardian.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is by defendants 1, 3 and 11 against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 256/69 on the file of the District Judge, Visakapatnam, reversing the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 52/66 on the file of the District Munsif, Narasipatnam.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of his title to, and recovery of the plaint schedule properties on the averment that the Ist defendant, the admitted owner of the properties, executed a gift deed. Ex. A-1 dated 19-1-1945 in favour of one Dasina Maridayya having died his heirs and legal representatives sold the same under the registered sale deed. Ex. A-23 dated 24-6-1965 in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 5,000 / -. The sale deed was ratified under a document Ex. A-25 dt. 19-1-1968. As the defendants interfered with his possession, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
( 3 ) IT was the case of the Ist defendant that the gift deed was nominal and was not acted upon, and that even after the execution of the gift deed, she continued to be in possession of the plaint schedule properties and that she also acquired title by adverse possession.
( 4 ) WHILE the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit, on appeal, the learned District Judge, has decreed the same.
( 5 ) IT may be noticed that even the trial Court which dismissed the suit, found that the execution of the gift deed was true. In the lower appellate Court that finding was not challenged. The lower appellate Court on a review of the evidence further found that the gift deed was in fact acted upon, that Dasina Maridayya was put in possession of the properties and that the Ist defendants claim that she continued in possession thereof was false. Consequently, the question of the Ist defendant acquiring title by adverse possession, and the plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession being barred by limitation did not arise. These findings are fully supported by the evidence on record. That possession was delivered in pursuance of the gift deed is supported by voluminous documentary evidence consisting of Exs. A-4 to A-16 and X-1 and X-2 as also the oral evidence. The cist receipts filed on behalf of the first defendant Exts. B-3 to B-5, do not mention the survey numbers of the lands to which the receipts relate. There is nothing in the evidence of P. Ws. 6 and 7 to connect these receipts with the suit land. The village munsiff or the karanam has not been examined to prove that these receipts pertain to the plaint schedule lands.
( 6 ) THE case of the 1st defendant that the lands in question were leased out by her to Papisetti Nagaraju, Mamidi Tatalu and Palaka Appanna, is not proved by producing the kadapas, or examining the lessees. D. W. 5 who was examined to proved that he purchased the mango fruit and cashewnut from the plaint schedule land during the years 1964 and 2965 was not mentioned in the written statement and no documentary evidence has been filed to prove that he in fact, purchased the fruit of the plaint schedule land from the 1st defendant. The finding of the lower appellate Court that the donee entered into possession of the land in pursuance of the gift deed, and that the gift deed was not nominal and consequently under that document valid title and possession was transferred in favour of the plaintiff, does not call for interference in this second appeal.
( 7 ) THE contention that the sale deed is not supported by consideration and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to sue, is not available to the defendants who are not the executants of the sale deed and who do not derive title from the plaintiffs vendor.
( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants contends that Ex. A-23 was not executed either by Simhachalem or her son Konda who was then a minor and that it was only executed by Nookaraju, widow of Rajulu who had a half share in the properties on behalf of Simhachalam and her minor son Konda. It was, however, argued that Simhachalams father Thagar
